tHE 

6424- 
P&4 


UC-NRLF 


$B    bMS    7D7 


Our    Despotic    Postal 
Censorship 


By  LOUIS  F.  POST 

Editor  of  The  Public 


Keprinted  from  The  Public  of  March  10, 1906 


POSTAL  OEIJSOESHIP  OP   BANKING 

The  Lewis  case  of  St.  Louis  (p. 
778)  is  a  striking  instance  of  the 
dangerous  meddlesomeness  of  the 
postal  department  in  private  busi- 
ness. Lewis  had  undertaken  to 
establish  a  banking  business  with 
certain  novel  features.  Whether 
those  features  would  be  useful  or 
Ti'ot  we  make  no  pretense  of  say- 
^n|g  We  are  quite  convinced, 
'10  ever,  that  post  office  "inspec- 
—    — ^ — — — > 

*s  pamphlet  originally  appeared  as  an 

e        rial  in  The  Public  (Chicago)  of  March 

'0,      06.    It  was  preceded  by  two  editorials 

le   same  subject.    One  of  these,  "Our 

ancing  Postal  Censorship,"  appeared  In 

Public   of  August  12,   1905,   and   is  in 

nhlet  form.    The  other,  "The  Growing 

^r  of  Our  Postal  Censorship,'*  appeared 

^         le  Public  of  October  7,  1905.    Page  ref- 

oes  in  the  text  are  to  the  pages  of  vol. 

^'"■■'""""""240978 


tors"  (the  official  name  for  mail 
bag  detectives)  are  not  qualified 
judges;  and  we  doubt  the  compe- 
tency of  a  Postmaster  General 
who  collected  campaign  contri- 
butions from  financial  corpora- 
tions to  be  used  for  his  chief's 
election.  Yet  this  Postmaster 
General,  upon  the  ex  parte  report 
of  such  detectives,  did  by  arbi- 
trary order  close  the  mails  to 
Lewis's  banking  enterprise.  Of 
course  that  meant  death  to  the 
enterprise,  for  mail  facilities  are 
vital  to  every  modern  business. 
The  pretense  was  that  the  busi- 
ness was  fraudulent.  But  this 
pretense  has  been  killed  by  the 
report  of  the  receiver  of  the  as- 
sassinated enterprise,  who  says  of 
it  that  every  loan  and  investment 
has  been  liquidated  100  cents  on 
the  dollar  with  interest  in  full; 
that  the  depositors  are  being  paid 
in  full;  and  that  he  has  already 
declared  dividends  to  the  stot;k- 
holders  of  85  per  cent.  If  that  ^^  as 
a  fraudulent  institution,  maki  ^g 
loans  on  wildcat  securities,  what 
shall  be  said  of  the  honest  ones 
whose  securities  do  not  pan  out  in 
full,  whose  depositors  get  but  a 
fraction  of  their  money  back,  and 
whose  stockholders  are  lucky  if 
thev  don't  have  to  submit  to  an 


assessment?  Besides  .  this  evi- 
dence of  the  legitimacy  of  Mr. 
Lewis's  assassinated  business, 
we  have  the  signed  statement  of 
Alexander  Del  Mar,  the  distin- 
guished publicist  who  is  editor  of 
the  American  Banker,  that  he  is 
satisfied  after  minute  examina- 
tion that  the  banking  business  in 
question — 

however  original  its  metliod  of  promo- 
tion, or  however  novel  its  features  and 
plan  of  working,  was  an  honestly  de- 
signed, and  an  honestly  conducted  in- 
stitution and  one  which,  had  it  not 
been  disturbed,  would  have  proved 
profitable  to  its  stockholders  and  de- 
positors and  even  beneficial  to  the 
country  at  large,  by  increasing  the 
revenues  of  the  post  ofiice  department, 
providing  a  safe  and  expenseless  money 
order  system  and  affording  facilities  to 
the  multitude  for  obtaining  small  loans 
of  money  upon  pledges.  I  am  ^  con- 
strained to  add  that  the  dates  and 
other  details  of  the  attacks  made  upon 
it  by  the  several  parties  indicated  point 
to.  a  concerted  effort,  originating  in 
trade  rivalry  and  embittered  by  malice. 

The  fact  that  such  a  business 
could  be  ruined  by  the  flat  of  a 
cabinet  officer  is  reason  enough 
'  for  overhauling  the  statutes  un- 
der which  an  administrative  de- 
partment of  the  central  govern- 
ment has  drawn  to  itself  such 
monstrous  power. 

3 


POSTAL  OENSOKSHIP  OP  PERIODI- 
OALS. 

We  recur  with  much  reluctance 
to  the  despotic  censorship  which 
is  growing  up  in  the  Post  Office 
Department  (p.  420),  under  cover 
of  well-meant  Congressional  leg- 
islation for  the  suppression  of  vice 
and  fraud.  The  subject  cannot  be 
neglected  while  that  crude  and 
careless  legislation  remains  upon 
•the  statute  books  unamended. 
For  this  censorship,  already  de- 
structive of  some  of  the  legiti- 
mate postal  rights  of  some  per- 
sons, is  becoming  more  and  more 
expansive  in  scope  and  despot- 
ic in  execution. 

The  particular  instance  regard- 
ing which  we  are  about  to  submit 
the  facts,  relates,  as  did  a  previ- 
ous one  (p.  290),  to  thCxChicago  pe- 
riodical known  as  "Lucifer," 
which  the  Post  Office  Department 
is  endeavoring  to  suppress  on  the 
manifestly  false  pretense  that  it 
is  an  obscene  publication.  On  the 
same  pretense  and  by  the  same  in- 
fluence, the  editor,  Mr.  Moses  Har- 
man,  has  been  imprisoned  (p.  806) 
through  the  machinery  of  the  Fed- 
eral courts.  / 


Lucifer  is  devoted  in  good  faith 
to  the  propagation  of  its  editor's 
opinions    regarding  sex  relation- 


ships.  Although  these  opinions 
are  contrary  to  ours,  we  conceive 
that  they  may  nevertheless  be  en- 
titled to  respectful  consideration, 
and  we  therefore  demand  for 
them  the  same  freedom  of  expres- 
sion that  we  enjoy  for  our  own. 
They  are,  indeed,  hostile  to  the 
perpetuation  of  certain  ecclesias- 
tical and  social  conventionalities, 
but  only  a  false  witness  or  si  moral 
pervert  would  deliberately  pro- 
nounce them  obscene.  The  prod- 
uct of  a  philosophical  and  not  a 
salacious  mind,  they  presefit  for 
rational  thought  questions  of  hu- 
man welfare  which  demand  un.cen- 
sored  expression. 

But  the  vital  question  present- 
ed by  the  particular  circumstan- 
ces to  be  here  considered,  is  not 
whether  ^^Lucifer^s''  opinions  and 
ours,  or  its  opinions  and  anybody 
else's,  are  at  variance.  It  is  not 
whether  one  kind  of  opinion  or 
another  shall  be  suppressed.  It  is 
not  whether  obscenity  shall  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  mails,  nor  even 
whether  ^'Lucifer''  is  actyally 
guilty  of  obscene  utterances.  The 
vital  question  to  the  American 
people  in  this  and  all  similar 
cases,  is  whether  any  person  shall, 
upon  any  pretense  whatever,  be 
deprived  of  his  liberty  or  his  prop- 
erty, so  far  as  either  depends  upon 
the  use  of  the  mails,  without  a  fair 


trial  and  in  accordance  with  pub- 
lic law  and  unconcealed  prece- 
dents. It  is  the  old  question  of 
'^administrative  process"  in  a  new 
form. 

That  the  right  to  use  the  mails 
depends,  under  the  act  of  Con- 
gress as  it  now  exists,  upon  the 
mere  whim  of  administrative  of- 
ficers we  have  already  proved. 
We  purpose  now  to  confirm  that 
proof  with  additional  evidence. 
At  the  same  time  we  shall  demon- 
strate specifically  the  following 
assertions: 

1.  Any  periodical,  though  it  con- 
tains nothing  obscene,  is  subject  to 
exclusion  peremptorily  from  the  mails 
as  a  purveyor  of  obscenity,  upon  the 
mere  order  of  administrative  officials 
of  the  Post  Office  Department. 

2.  Exclusion  orders  are  made  os- 
tensibly in  accordance  with  prece- 
dents of  the  Department  created  by 
rulings  in  particular  cases  upon  what 
constitutes  obscenity;  but  these  pre- 
cedents are  secret,  and  by  refusing  to 
define  their  limitations  upon  request 
the  Department  prevents  publishers 
from  guarding"  against  the  i>enalties 
of  orders  of  exclusion. 

3.  Publishers  whose  periodicals  are 
so  excluded  are  accorded  no  protection 
by  the  courts  against  unjust  exclusions, 
not  even  though  the  exclusion  be  made 
in  manifest  bad  faith.  As  the  law 
stands,  the  Postmaster  General's  dic- 
tum, right  or  wrong,  and  whether  with 


good  intent  or   evil   intent,  is  abso- 
lute. 

4.  In  practice  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment excludes  periodicals  from 
the  mails  for  publishing  articles  de- 
nounced as  obscene,  which  in  fact  are 
not  obscene. 

5.  The  law  as  it  now  stands  affords 
officials  of  the  Post  Office  Department 
a  degree  of  opportunity  for  corrupt 
discrimination  in  excluding  periodi- 
cals, which  it  is  unsafe  to  repose  in 
any  official  and  which  ought  to  be 
carefully  guarded  against  by  Con- 
gress. 

I 

About  the  middle  of  August 
last,  we  were  advised  that  the  is- 
sue of  "Lucifer"  of  August  3  had 
been  excluded  from  the  mails  by 
postal  order.  According  to  our 
information,  the  matter  specified 
as  objectionable  was  in  a  para- 
graph of  each  of  two  indicated  ar- 
ticles. 

The  first  of  these  paragraphs 
was  clearly  not  obnoxious  to  the 
law,  unless  President  Roosevelt's 
observations  on  race  suicide  were 
obnoxious  to  it;  the  second  was  no 
more  so,  unless  a  book  it  named 
by  title  is  on  the  postal  index  ex- 
purgatorius.  We  should  have 
no  hesitation  in  republishing 
both  paragraphs  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  their  innocence,  were 
it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  Post 


Office  Department  has  them  now 
on  its  index  expurgatorius.  This 
fact  alone,  were  we  to  republish 
them  here,  would  subject  this  is- 
sue of  The  Public  to  the  risk  of  ex- 
clusion from  the  mails  by  order  of 
the  Post  Office  Department,  and 
without  possibility  of  protection 
from  the  courts. 

Upon  examining  the  articles  in 
question  we  wrote,  August  12, 
1905,  to  the  Chicago  postmaster 
as  follows: 

Mr.  Moses  Harman.  the  publisher  of 
"Lucifer  the  Light  Bearer."  which  is 
entered  at  the  Chicgo  post  office, 
writes  us  to  the  effect  that  his  issue 
of  August  3d  was  submitted  to  your 
office  for  mailing;  that  your  office  ad- 
vised that  the  first  two  articles  of 
the  issue  were  unmailable  under  sec- 
tion 497  of  the  Postal  Laws  and  Regu- 
lations; and  that  the  question  is  now 
before  the  Department  at  Washington 
awaiting  its  decision,  the  issue  of  Lu- 
cifer for  August  3d  being  meanwhile 
practically  denied  circulation  through 
the  mails. 

The  first  article  he  indicates  is 
Signed  .  .  .  and  the  second  purports 
to  be  an  extract  from  an  article  in 
the  .  .  .  by  .  .  .*  I  have  read  the 
articles  with  a  good  deal  of  carfe, 
and  fail  to  find  in  them  anything  ihat 
can  possibly,  either  in  thought  or 
phrase,  fall  within  what  I  should  sup- 

*  Name  omitted  for  reasons  stated  in 
the  next  note. 


pose  would  be  considered  a  fair  in- 
terpretation of  the  section  of  the 
Postal  Laws  and  Regulations  referred 
to  above. 

If  the  articles  were  in  harmony 
with  my  own  views,  I  should  never 
think  of  refusing  them  admission  to 
my  columns,  although  I  am  extremely 
careful,  entirely  apart  from  any  con- 
sideration of  the  postal  laws  and  regu- 
lations, to  avoid  giving  offense  with 
reference  to  the  general  subject  with 
which  these  articles  are  allied.  I  can 
£eeno  reason  whatever  for  refusing  them 
admission  to  any  publication  on  any 
other  ground  than  that,  as  in  my  case, 
Ihey  are  out  of  harmony  with  its  edito- 
rial policy.  I  am  therefore  con- 
strained to  believe  that  there  must  be 
some  mistake  or  misunderstanding.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  possible  that  your 
office  would  take  the  action  which  the 
publisher  of  Lucifer  tells  me  has  been 
taken  respecting  these  articles. 

May  I  therefore  respectfully  ask  you 
to  inform  me  of  the  facts  so  far  as 
your  office    is   concerned? 

The  reply  of  the  Chicago  post- 
master, promptly  made  and  bear- 
ing the  date  of  August  14,  was  as 
follows: 

Replying  to  yours  of  August  12, 
concerning  the  publication  "Lucifer," 
the  issue  of  August  3  contains  obscene 
literature,  judged  by  the  precedent  set 
by  the  Department  at  Washington  in 
its  rulings  on  this  publication.  The 
alleged  objectionable  matter  is  found 


m  the  .  .  .  paragraph,*  beginning  .  .  . 
in  the  .  .  .  column  of  page  .  .  .  also 
in  the  .  .  .  paragraph  from  the  bottom 
of  the  same  column,  beginning  .  .  . 
In  this  paragraph  a  pamphlet  is  ad- 
vertised which  contains  obscene  mat- 
ter. 

If  the  matter  is  not  obscene  in  the 
meaning  of  the  law.  the  ruling  of  the 
Department  at  Washington  will  ren- 
der the  matter  mailable,  and  no  dam- 
age will  result  to  the  publication. 

There  has  been  no  misunderstanding 
on  the  part  of  this  office  in  its  action 
on  this  issue  of  the  publication.  This 
action  is  entirely  within  the  Depart- 
mental instructions,  and  so  far  in  the 
history  of  this  publication  the  action 
of  this  oflace  has  been  upheld  by  the 
Department. 

The  paragraphs  specified  in  the 
postmaster's  letter,  the  specific 
reference  to  which  we  omit  for 
reasons  explained  in  the  footnote, 
were  the  same  paragraphs  as  those 
to  which  our  attention  had  been 
originally  called.  The  second  one 
was  hel,d  to  be  objectionable  only 

•  We  omit  the  specific  references  made  In 
the  Postmaster's  letter,  because  their 
inclusion  here  migh't  subject  this  Is- 
sue of  The  Public  to  suppression  by 
order  of  the  postal  censor.  The  same 
act  of  Congress  by  authority  of  which 
*'Lucifer"  was  censored  for  publish- 
ing those  articles,  provides  also  that  "no- 
tice of  any  kind  giving  Information,  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  where  or  how,  or  of  whom 
or  by  what  means  an  "obscene  .  .  .  pub- 
lication of  an  indecent  character"  "may  be 
obtained,"  is  itself  "non-mailable  matter." 

10 


because  it  named  a  book  which  ia 
on  the  postal  index  expurga- 
torius. 

This  letter  from  the  Chicago 
postmaster  throws  some  light  on 
the  indifference  of  the  postal  au- 
thorities to  personal  rights.  "If 
the  matter  is  not  obscene,"  calmly 
writes  the  Chicago  postmaster 
(doubtless  by  the  hand  of  a  bu- 
reaucratic subordinate),  "the  rul- 
ing of  the  Department  at  Wash- 
ington will  render  the  matter 
mailable,  and  no  damage  will  re- 
sult to  the  publication/^  No 
damage  will  result  to  the  publica- 
tion! A  whole  issue  of  a  publica- 
tion may  be  stopped  while  a  bureau 
at  Washington  leisurely  consid- 
ers whether  it  contains  obscenity, 
and  if  the  bureau's  decision  is  fa- 
vorable, "no  damage  will  result  to 
the  publication" !  This  discloses  a 
queer  notion  of  the  nature  of 
newspaper  property.  However, 
as  to  our  inquiry  the  Chicago  post- 
master's letter  was  as  specific  as 

Since  the  censors  have  already  decided 
that  the  articles  in  question  are  obscene 
and  indecent,  they  might  decide  that  the 
naming  of  them  by  title  and  page  in  con- 
nection with  the  name  of  the  publication 
in  which  they  appeared,  is  a  notice  makinjr 
the  paper  publishing  it  also'  guilty  under 
the  statute  and  therefore  subject  to  sup- 
pression. Were  they  to  so  decide,  they 
could  suppress  this  issue  of  The  Public, 
and  we  should  be  without  protection  or  re- 
dress or  any  power  to  get  a  judicial  triaL 

11 


could  be  required;  and  we  await 
ed  the  final  action  of  the  Depart- 
ment upon  the  postmaster's  order 
of  exclusion. 


Meanwhile  the  Chicago  post- 
master had  found  it  necessary,  in 
accordance  with  the  precedents  of 
the  Department,  to  exclude  also 
the  issue  of  "Lucifer"  of  Au- 
gust 17th. 

In  this  instance  the  accusation, 
as  reported  to  us,  was  plainly  im- 
aginary. It  rested  in  part  upon 
the  republication  of  an  editorial 
from  tlic  ^^'o]llal^s  Journal,  of 
Boston,  the  ii;Mi<mal  woman  suf- 
frage organ,  iuid  oiio  of  the 
purest  and  nio.s!  icjMiijiblc  jioiiod 
icals  in  the  United  States,  and  in 
part  upon  an  extract  from  an  of- 
ficial report  of  the  Agricultural 
Department  of  the  United  States 
government. 

We  thereupon  wrote  this  letter, 
dated  August  20th,  to  the  Chicago 
postmaster: 

Thank  you  for  your  prompt,  cour- 
teous and  full  reply  of  August  14th  to 
mine  of  August  12th,  in  which  I  had 
inquired  relative  to  denial  of  mail  serv- 
ice to  the  edition  of  the  paper  Lucifer 
01  August  3d. 

In  one  respect  you  misunderstood 
me.  It  was  not  my  intention  to  imply 
that  your  office  is  acting  recklessly 
with  reference  to  the  policy  of  the  De- 

12 


partment,  or  contrary  to  Departmental 
instructions.  I  was  only  seeking  in- 
formation as  to  the  policy,  rulings  and 
instruQtions  of  the  Department  as  ap- 
plied by  you  in  a  particular  case. 

And  now  I  must  trouble  you  again 
in  the  same  way.  I  am  informed  that 
the  issue  of  Lucifer,  of  August  17th, 
also  has  been  refused  mail  service,  and 
that  the  refusal  is  based  on  the 
charge  that  an  article  reproduced  in 
it  from  the  Woman's  Journal,  of  Bos- 
ton, and  written  by  one  of  the  editors 
of  that  paper,  Alice  Stone  Blackwell,. 
is  unmailable  under  section  497  of 
Postal  Laws  and  Regulations.  As  the 
Woman's  Journal  is  the  principal  jour- 
nalistic  representative  of  the  woman 
suffrage  movement  in  the  United 
States,  and  is  everywhere  respected  as 
a  pure  and  able  publication,  and  Miss 
Blackwell  is  a  woman  of  national  repu- 
tation with  a  stainless  character,  this 
action  of  your  office  is  of  peculiar  im- 
portance and  of  exceptional  public 
concern. 

The  matter  also  concerns  me  person- 
ally, for  in  entire  good  faith,  I  also 
have  reproduced  an  extract  from  Miss 
Blackwell's  article.  Whether  the  part 
I  have  reproduced  includes  any  of  the 
article  to  which  you  are  said  to  ob- 
ject, I  cannot  positively  know  untir  I 
learn  definitely  from  you  the  particu- 
lar part  or  parts  of  that  article  (the 
whole  and  every  part  of  which  seem 
to  me  a  thoroughly  clean  and  just 
criticism  of  the  present  postal  admin- 
istration) to  which  postal  objection  is 
made   and   for   the     republication     of 

13 


which  the  mail  service  is  denied  to 
Lucifer  of  August  17,— if  such  service 
has  been  denied  on  account  of  any- 
thing contained  in  Miss  Blackwell's  ar- 
ticle. 

Both  for  my  own  guidance,  there- 
fore, and  also  for  legitimate  public  use, 
will  you  kindly  indicate  to  me  spe- 
cifically, in  such  way  as  you  think 
proper,  what  are  the  grounds  for  the 
exclusion  from  the  mails  of  the  edi- 
tion of  Lucifer  of  August  17th. 

The  postmaster's  reply,  bearing 
date  of  August  29th,  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

Replying  4:o  yours  of  August  26, 
three  pounds  of  the  publication  "Luci- 
fer," of  the  issue  of  August  17,  were 
offered  for  mailing  at  this  office,  and 
the  copies  are  held,  awaiting  decision 
by  the  Department  at  Washington  as 
to  whether  or  not  they  are  mailable 
under  Sec.  497,  P.  L.  &  R. 

The  matter  to  which  the  attention 
of  the  Department  has  been  especially 
drawn  by  this  oflSce  is  the  article  at 
the  head  of  the  .  .  .  column  of  page 
.  .  .,  and  the  .  .  .  lines  at  the  .  .  . 
of  the  .  . .  column  of  page  .  .  .* 

Judging  by  precedent,  this  matter  is 
In  violation  of  Sec.  497,  and  under 
postal  instructions  it  is  the  duty  of 
this  office  to  submit  the  matter  to  the 
Department  at  Washingon  for  a  ruling 

Owing  to  the  indefiniteness  of 
this  letter  from  the  Postmaster, 

•  Indicating  the  articles  containing  quota- 
tion from  U.  S.  Agricultural  Report  and 
two  lines  of  the  Woman's  Journal  article. 

14 


we  made  the  following  further  in- 
quiry, in  a  letter  to  him  bearing 
date  of  August  30th: 

Thank  you  for  your  reply  of  the  29tii 
to  mine  of  26th,  in  re  issue  of  Lu- 
cifer of  August  17th. 

You  say  that  "the  attention  of  th« 
Department  has  been  especially 
drawn"  by  your  office  to  "the  article 
at  the  ...  of  the  .  .  .  column  of  page 
.  .  .,  and  the  .  .  .  lines  at  the  .  .  . 
of  the  .  .  .  column  of  page  ..."  As 
you  qualify  your  statement  by  the 
word  "especially,"  may  I  further  ask 
whether  you  acted  also  on  any 
other  part  of  the  article  on  page  .  .  ., 
or  on  any  other  article  in  the  issue 
in  question? 

And  if  it  would  be  proper  for  you 
to  give  it,  I  should  like  the  follow- 
ing additional  information  regarding 
the  objectionability  of  the  article  at 
the  head  of  the  .  .  .  column  of  page 

1.  Does  the  objection  apply  to  the 

use  of  the  title  of  Dr.  's  book  in 

the  .  .  .  line  of  the  text  of  that  article? 

2.  Does  it  apply  to  the  language  of 
the  comparison  between  mankind  and 
horse  kind  in  lines  .......  and  .  .  . 

of  the  text  of  the  article? 

3.  Does  it  apply  to  the  quotation  in 
line  .  .  .  of  the  text  of  the  article, 
purporting  to  be  from  page  ...  of  a 
"Special  Report  on  Diseases  of  the 
Korse"  prepared  under  the  direction 
of  Dr.  D.  E.  Salmon,  and  issued  by 
the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  in  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture? 

15 


4.  Does  it  apply  to  the  quotation  in 
lines  .  .  .  and  ...  of  the  text  of  the 
article  in  question,  purporting  to  be 
fiom  the  text  of  the  above  described 
report  of  the  Agricultural  department? 

5.  Does  it  apply  to  the  use  of  the 
title  of  Dr.  — — 's  book  in  the  .  .  . 
line  of  the  text  of  the  article  in  ques- 
tion? 

Noting  what  you  say  to  the  effect 
that  the  articles  in  question  are  in  vio- 
lation of  section  497  according  to  prece- 
dent, and  that  it  is  your  duty  under 
postal  instructions  to  submit  them  to 
the  Department  for  a  ruling,  I  wish 
to  assure  you  of  my  absolute  confidence 
in  your  good  faith  and  that  of  your 
office.  Permit  me  also  to  apologize 
for  presuming  to  interrogate  you  so 
minutely  as  I  do  in  this  letter.  Be- 
lieve me,  I  am  far  from  desiring  to 
annoy  you,  or  your  office,  or  the  De- 
partment. But  it  seems  to  me  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  editors 
and  the  reading  public  should  know 
the  extent  of  the  limitations  that  the 
rulings  of  the  Department  are  impos- 
ing upon  editorial  discussion,  quota- 
tion, etc.,  and  it  is  only  to  this  end 
that  I  trouble  you.* 

Following  was  the  Chicago 
postmaster^s  reply  of  September 
1st  to  the  foregoing  letter: 

Replying  to  yours  of  August  30,  rela- 
tive to  the  publication  **Lucifer,"  I 
cannot  answer  your  specific  questions 
with  a  direct  "yes"  or  "no."      I  see 

♦  Specific  references  omitted  for  reasons 
stated  in  previous  foot  note. 

16 


no  necessity  for  this  office  to  explain 
its  objection  to  this  printed  matter  in 
tho  manner  you  have  prescribed.  The 
article  in  question  may  be  "obscene," 
within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  That 
in  for  the  Department  at  Washington 
to  decide.  To  quote  your  statement,  it  may 
be  "of  the  utmost  importance  that  ed- 
itors and  the  reading  public  should 
know  the  extent  of  the  limitations 
.that  the  rulings  of  the  Department  are 
imposing  upon  editorial  discussion, 
quotations,  etc,"  but  it  is  not  within 
the  province  of  this  office  to  interpret 
the  law.  That  is  the  prerogative  of 
the  Department  at  Washington.  This 
office  can  only  refer  you  to  the  statutes 
and  to  the  rulings  of  the  Department 
Id  specific  cases. 

In  answer  to  the  first  question  of 
yours  of  August  30,  all  references  to 
the  book  ".  .  ."*  were  marked  in  the 
copy  sent  to  the  Department  by  this 
office.  These  references  are  not  neces- 
sarily objectionable.  The  quotation 
from  the  book  may  be. 


Having  been  refused  in  the  pre- 
ceding letter  the  information  we 
sought,  and  referred  therein  "to 
the  rulings  of  the  Department  in 
specific  cases,"  we  addressed  the 
Postmaster  General  the  follow- 
ing letter  dated  September  6th : 

Will    you    kindly    examine   the     in- 

*  Name  of  book  omitfed  for  reasons  here- 
tofore given.  The  book  mentioned  in  the 
Postmaster's  letter  is  not  the  U.  S.  Agri- 
cultural  Report,   but  Dr.  's    book    en- 

UUed  ".    .    .    ." 

17 


closed  correspondence  between  my- 
self and  the  Postmaster  at  Chicago 
and,  if  in  your  judgment  proper  to  do 
so,  favor  me  with  the  information 
which  the  Chicago  Postmaster  does 
not  regard  it  proper  for  his  office  to 
furnish? 

To  facilitate  your  examination  of 
the  inclosures,  I  describe  them  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  My  letter  of  August  26  asking  (for 
legitimate  public  use)  for  a  specifica- 
tion of  the  grounds  for  the  Chicago 
Postmaster's  exclusion  from  the  mails 
of  the  edition  of  the  Chicago  periodical 
"Lucifer,"  of  August  17,  1905. 

2.  The  Postmaster's  response  of  Aug- 
ust 29,  indicating  the  matter  to  which 
the  attention  of  your  Department  was 
"especially  drawn"  by  the  Chicago  post 
office  as  furnishing  grounds  for  the 
exclusion. 

3.  My  reply  of  August  30th,  asking 
specific  questions,  with  a  view  to 
ascertaining  exactly,  and  all,  the  mat- 
ter objected  to  in  the  edition  of  "Lu- 
cifer" in  question,  the  Postmaster  hav- 
ing qualified  his  response  to  my  for- 
mer letter  with  the  word  "especially," 
as  you  will  observe  by  reference  to  the 
copy  of  his  response  inclosed. 

4.  The  Postmaster's  reply  of  Septem- 
ber 1,  stating  that  he  sees  no  necessity 
for  explaining  his  objection  to  the 
printed  matter  in  question  in  the  man- 
ner I  have  requested,  and  referring  to 
your  Department. 

My  specific  requests  of  your  Depart- 
ment are: 

18 


First,  Whether  the  Chicago  Postmas- 
ter, in  denying  mail  service  to  the  is- 
sue of  Lucifer  of  August  17,  noted  as 
objectionable  any  other  part  or  parts 
of  that  issue  than  the  parts  described 
by  him  in  his  letters  to  me  of  August 
2\i  and  September  1.  If  so,  what  part 
or  parts? 

Second.  Whether  the  objections  he 
noted  applied  to  the  issue  of  Lucifer 
in  question,  as  indicated  by  any  or  all 
of  those  questions  in  my  letter  to  him 
of  August  30th,  which  are  therein  dis- 
tinguished by  the  numerals  2,  3  and  4. 

As  I  stated  in  my  letter  of  August 
30  to  the  Chicago  Postmaster,  it  is 
no  part  of  my  purpose  to  annoy  your 
Department,  or  any  branch  of  it,  with 
impertinent  inquiries.  I  may  add  that 
I  have  no  intention  of  soliciting  any 
information  that  the  general  public 
have  no  right  to  know.  But  I  shall 
be  greatly  obliged  if  your  Department 
will  give  me  the  information  solicitei 
above,  so  far  as  it  may  be  within  the 
bounds  of  propriety,  and,  to  save  fur- 
ther inquiry  from  me,  will  be  sufficiently 
specific  with  reference  to  any  of  my 
requests  that  you  may  think  improper, 
as  to  assure  me  that  the  failure  to  re 
ply  is  because  they  are  improper  and 
not  because  they  are  accidentally  over- 
looked. 


The  reply  to  the  foregoing  let- 
ter was  dated  September  13,  and 
came  from  the  First  Assistant 
Postmaster  General,  who    wrote: 

In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  6th 
instant  to  the  Postmaster  General,  you 

19 


are  informed  that  this  Department  can- 
rot  undertake  to  specify  In  detail  the 
objectionable  matter  appearing  in  the 
issue  of  the  periodical,  "Lucifer,"  of 
August  17,  1905,  which  caused  the  ex- 
clusion of  that  issue  from  the  mails. 

This  reply  was  so  obviously  cin 
attempt  to*^  evade  responsibility, 
and  so  manifestly  indicative  of  a 
disposition  to  censor  the  mails  not 
only  arbitrarily  but  secretly,  thai 
we  renewed  our  inxjuiries.  This 
seemed  necessary  in  order  to. 
make  sure  that  the  foregoing  let- 
ter w^as  deliberately  in  execution 
of  a  policy  of  secret  censorship  in-  ^ 
stituted  by  the  Department,  and 
not  merely  the  irresponsible  act 
of  a  careless  first  assistant. 

Our  letter  renewing  our  previ- 
ous inquiries  was  also  addressed 
to  the  Postmaster  General.  It 
bore  date  September  18,  and  as 
will  be  noticed  from  its  reproduc- 
tion below  it  sought  the  informa- 
tion on  the  special  ground  that 
the  Department's  decision  had 
made  a  precedent,  the  limitations 
of  which  ought  to  be  divulged 
upon  application  by  persons  like- 
ly to  be  affected  by  it  in  conduct- 
ing their  business: 

I  am  in  receipt  of  reply  of  the  13th 
by  the  First  Assistant  Postmaster 
General  to  my  letter  of  inquiry  of  the 
6th,  in  which  the  First  Assistant  Post- 
master General  advises  me  that  your 

20 


"Department  cannot  undertake  to 
specify  in  detail  the  objectionable  mat- 
ter appearing  in  the  issue  of  the  pe- 
riodical 'Lucifer'  of  August  17,  1905, 
which  caused  the  exclusion  of  that 
issue  from  the  mails." 

Since  receiving  that  letter  I  am  in- 
formed that  your  Department  has  sus- 
tained the  Postmaster  at  Chicago  la 
his  exclusion  of  the  issue  of  ''Luci- 
fer" of  August  17,  and  that  this 
has  been  done  because  in  that 
issue  it  published  an  editorial  ar- 
ticle entitled  ".  .  ."  *and  an  ar- 
ticle copied  from  the  Woman's 
Journal,  entitled  '*.  .  ."  Inasmuch  as 
the  matter  has  been  finally  decided  by 
your  Department,  cind  is  no  longer  un- 
der advisement,  I  wish  to  ascertain 
the  extent  of  your  adjudication,  for 
the  purpose  of  understanding  its  ef- 
fect as  a  precedent. 

As  t^  the  article  from  the  Woman's 
Journal,  your  adjudication  is  suflacient- 
ly  specific  in  one  lespect,  namely,  the 

.  .  lines  at  the  top  of  the  .  .  .  col- 
umn of  page  ...  of  "Lucifer"  of  Aug- 
ust 17,  and  as  to  that  I  have  no  ques- 
tions to  ask. 

As  to  the  other  part  of  the  same  ar- 
ticle, the  matter  about  .  .  .  way  down 
the  .  .  .  column  of  page  ...  of  "Lu- 
cifer," which  you  have  adjudicated  to 
te  objectionable,  will  you  kindly  in- 
form me  whether  or  not  your  adjudi- 
cation rests  only  or  at  all  upon  the 
naming  there  of  the  title  of  a  book? 

*  Titles  of  editorials  are  here  omitted  for 
precautionarj'  reasons.  See  preceding-  foot- 
notes. 

21 


I  should  also  like  to  know,  whether 
your  adjudication  as  to  the  Woman's 
Journal  article  in  "Lucifer"  rests  upon 
anything  else  than  the  naming  of  that 
book,  and  ui)on  the  .  .  .  lines  at  the 
...  of  the  .  .  .  column  of  page  .  .  . 

Finally,  as  to  the  article  in  **Lu- 
cifer"  entitled  "., .  .'*  it  seems  to  me 
especially  important,  since  the  Post- 
master at  Chicago  advises  me  that  he 
acts  in  these  questions  upon  the  prece- 
dents your  Department  establishes, 
that  I  should  know  the  full  bearing  of 
the  precedent  established  with  refer- 
ence to  this  particular  article.  The 
article,  as  you  will  recall,  mentions 
the  title  of  a  book,  and  quotes  from  an 
official  report  of  the  United  States  De- 
partment of  Agriculture.  Will  you 
kindly  inform  me  whether  your  adjudi- 
cation as  to  this  article  rests  upon 
the  naming  of  the  book,  or  the  quota- 
tion from  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment's report,  or  both? 

Please  understand  me.  I  am  not  en- 
deavoring to  probe  the  mental  proc- 
esses whereby  the  conclusions  of 
>our  Department  were  arrived  at.  All 
I  am  asking  for  is  the  extent  of  the 
conclusions  themselves,  in  so  far  as 
they  go  to  make  a  precedent. 

Regretting  what  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  necessity  for  further  troubling  you 
in  this  matter,  I  am,  etc. 

The  reply  of  the  Department  to 
the  foregoing  letter  confirmed  the 
indications  of  the  First  Assist- 
ant's letter  of  the  15th.  It  showed 
that  arbitrary  and  secret  censor- 

22 


ship  is  a  deliberate  policy  of  the 
Department;  either  that,  or  else 
that  F.  H.  Hitelieock,  First  Assist- 
ant Postmaster  General,  deliber- 
ately misrepresented  the  Depart- 
ment. For  the  reply,  signed  by  F. 
H.  Hitchcock  as  First  Assistant 
Postmaster  General,  and  dated 
September  27th,  was  as  follows: 

Your  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Postmaster  General,  has 
teen  referred  to  this  oflace  for  reply. 
With  reference  to  ycmr  questions  rela- 
tive to  certain  objectionable  articles 
which  appeared  in  the  issue  of  the  pub- 
lication "Lucifer,"  of  August  17th,  you 
are  informed  that  the  position  of  the 
•Department  in  the  matter  was  stated 
in  a  letter  to  you  bearing  date  of  the 
13th  instant. 

We  invite  attention  to  the  bu- 
reaucratic superciliousness  of  this 
reply  to  proper  questions  re- 
spectfully asked.  The  Depart- 
ment refuses  to  answer  further 
than  by  reference  to  its  prior  let- 
ter. In  its  prior  letter  it  declined 
to  "undertake  to  specify  in  detail 
the  objectionable  matter,"  etc. 
Now  what  had  we  asked?  Observe 
the  substance  of  our  questions 
and  the  Department's  reply: 

Question:  Did  the  Depart- 
ment's adjudication  as  to  a  cer- 
tain part  of  a  certain  article  "rest 
only  or  at  all  upon  the  naming 
there  of  the  title  of  a  book?'' 

23 


Answer:  The  Department  *^can- 
not  undertake  to  specify  in  detail 
the  objectionable  matter.'' 

Question:  Did  the  Depart- 
ment's adjudication  as  to  the 
Woman's  Journal  article  rest 
upon  anything  else  than  the  name 
of  a  book  and  certain  indicated 
lines? 

Answer:  The  Department 
^^cannot  undertake  to  specify  in 
detail  the  objectionable  matter." 

Question:  One  of  the  indicated 
articles  "mentions  the  title  of  a 
book,  and  quotes  from  an  official 
report  of  the  United  States  De- 
partment of  Agriculture.  Will 
you  kindly  inform  me  whether 
youradjudicationas  to  this  article 
rests  upon  the  naming  of  the  book, 
or  the  quotation  from  the  Agricul- 
tural Department's  report,  or 
both?" 

Answer:  The  Department  "can- 
not undertake  to  specify  in  detail 
the  objectionable  matter." 


Soon  after  the  foregoing  corre- 
spondence, we  learned  of  the  cen- 
sorship by  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment of  a  subsequent  issue  of 
"Lucifer,"  the  issue  of  October 
12th.  According  to  a  still  later  is 
sue  of  Lucifer,  the  circumstan- 
ces of  this  censorship  were  these: 
One  of  the  articles  in  that  issue 

24 


of  Lucifer,  to  which  the  Post  Of- 
fice Department  was  understood 
to  have  objected,  was  merely  a 
catalogue  of  books.  Among  the 
authors  were  e|^ohn  Stuart  Mill, 
August  Bebel  and  other  thinkers 
of  reputation;  and  none  of  them  is 
apparently  obscene  unless  every 
serious  discussion  of  the  philos- 
ophy and  physiology  of  sex  is  to  be 
considered  as  in  that  abhorrent 
category.  The  other  article  con- 
tains a  quotation  from  the  Lon- 
don Fortnightly  Review,  which  in- 
cludes one  from  Bernard  Shaw's 
^'Man  and  Superman,''  proposing 
pensions  as  a  preventive  of  what 
President  Roosevelt  calls  race  sui- 
cide. 

Upon  learning  of  the  suppres- 
sion of  this  issue  of  Lucifer  we 
addressed  the  following  letter  of 
inquiry  to  the  Postmaster  Gener- 
al, under  date  of  October  20th: 

I  am  informed  that  the  Chicago 
postmaster  has  excluded  from  the 
mails  the  issue  of  the  Chicago  paper 
named  "Lucifer,"  of  October  12,  1905, 
and  that  the  exclusion  is  based  upon 
an  article  on  page  .  .  .*  first  and  .  .  . 
columns,  containing  a  descriptive  cata- 
logue of  books,  and  upon  an  article  on 
page  .  .  .  second  column,  containing  a 
quotation  from  Bernard  Shaw's  "Man 
and  Superman."  I  am  also  informed 
that   your   Department   has   sustained 

♦  See  preceding  foot  noteft. 
25 


this  action  of  the  Chicago  postmaster. 
As  your  decision  constitutes  a  prece- 
dent by  which  the  Chicago  postmaster, 
as  he  has  informed  me  relative  to  your 
decisions  in  similar  cases  heretofore, 
will  be  governed  in*  future  cases,  will 
you  oblige  me  with  the  following  in- 
formation: 

1.  Has  your  Department  decided  that 
"Lucifer,"  of  October  12,  is  unmailable, 
and  if  so,  for  what  cause? 

2.  Is  it  because  on  page  .  .  .  that  pa- 
per names  and  tells  where  to  obtain 
any  unmailable  book  or  books? 

3.  Is  it  because  of  its  quotation  on 
page  .  .  .  from  Bernard  Shaw's  "Man 
and  Superman"? 

4.  If  The  Public  in  commenting  upon 
this  decision  of  your  Department,  were 
to  reproduce  the  said  catalogue  of 
books,  or  the  said  quotation  from 
Bernard  Shaw's  "Man  and  Superman,*' 
would  the  postmaster  at  Chicago  be 
required  to  consider  this  decision  of 
your  Department  in  the  "Lucifer" 
case  as  a  precedent  and  accordingly  to 
exclude  that  issue  of  The  Public  from 
the  mails? 

I  make  this  request  as  responsible 
editor  of  The  Public,  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  to  what  extent,  under 
precedents  made  by  your  Department. 
I  shall  be  at  liberty,  in  criticising  your 
decision  in  the  "Lucifer"  case,  to  state 
the  facts,  without  subjecting  The  Pub- 
lic to  exclusion  from  the  mails  by 
your  Department. 

To  this  inquiry  we  received  the 
following  response  from  the  office 


of  the  First  Assistant  Postmaster 
General: 

I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your 
letter  of  the  20th  instant,  to  the  Post- 
master General,  in  reference  to  the 
publication  "Lucifer.** 

In  reply  to  your  inquiry  you  are  in- 
formed that  the  Postmaster  at  Chi- 
cago was  instructed  to  decline  to  ac- 
cept for  mailing  copies  of  "Lucifer,"' 
of  the  issue  of  October  12,  1905,  for  the 
reason  that  such  number,  which  was 
submitted  to  the  Department,  con- 
tained matter  of  an  obscene  character. 

As  you  were  advised  under  date  of 
the  13th  ultimo  in  reference  to  an 
earlier  issue  of  "Lucifer,**  it  is  not 
practicable  for  the  Department  to  at- 
tempt to  point  out  all  the  offensive 
passages  upon  which  the  exclusion  of 
the  issue  from  the  mails  was  based, 
nor  can  the  Department  undertake  to 
state  what  would  or  would  not  be  un- 
mailable,  in  advance  of  the  matter  be- 
ing actually  presented  for  transmis- 
sion in  the  mails. 

A  reduction  of  this  correspond- 
ence also  to  questions  and  an- 
swers produces  the  following 
rather  remarkable  result: 

Question:  Does  the  Depart- 
ment exclude  the  issue  of  the  pa- 
per in  question  because  it  "names 
and  tells  where  to  obtain  any  un- 
mailable  book  or  books?" 

Answer:  "It  is  not  practica- 
ble for  the  Department  to  attempt 
to  point  out  all  the  offensive  pas- 

27 


sages  upon  which  the  exclusion  of 
the  issue  from  the  mails  is  based/' 

Question:  Is  it  because  of  the 
quotation  from  Bernard  Shaw's 
^•Man  and  Superman''? 

Answer:  ^'It  is  not  practicable 
for  the  Department  to  attempt  to 
point  out  all  the  offensive  pas- 
sages' upon  which  the  exclusion  of 
the  issue  from  the  mails  is  based." 

Question:  If  The  Public  were 
"to  reproduce  the  said  catalogue 
of  books,  or  the  said  quotation 
from  Bernard  Shaw^'s  ^Man  and 
Sui>erman/  would  llic  ]>ostmaster 
at  Chicago  be  rcMiuiKMl  to  consid- 
er this  decision  as  a  ]>r('cedent  and 
accordingly  to  exclude  that  issue 
of  The  Public  from  the  mails?" 

Answ(M':  The  Department  can- 
not nndciiake  "to  state  what 
w^ould  or  would  not  be  unmail- 
able  in  advance  of  the  mattcM-  Ix - 
ing  actually  presented  for  trans- 
mission in  the  mails." 


Now,  why  was  it  impracticable 
for  the  Department  to  state 
whether  or  not  the  exclusion  of 
Lucifer  w^as  because  it  printed  the 
names  and  jdaces  for  procuring 
certain  books?  The  Department 
was  not  asked  "to  point  out  all  of- 
fensivc'  ])assages." 

And  why  was  it  impracticable  for 
the  Dcjiartinent  to  state  whether 

28 


or  not  the  paper  in  question  was 
^excluded  because  of  its  quotation 
from  "Man  and  Supeiinaif'?  To 
do  this  it  was  not  necessary  '^to 
point  out  all  ott'ensive  i>assages." 
Finally,  why  couldn't  the  De- 
partment undertake  to  inform  us 
whether  the  jiostmaster  at  Chi- 
cago would  be  required  to  consid- 
er the  decision  in  the  Lucifer  case 
as  a  precedent?  What  is  the 
meaning  of  refusals  by  the  De- 
partment to  state  in  advance  of 
mailing  whether  matter  excluded 
from  the  mail  when  published  by 
one  periodical  would  be  unmail- 
able  if  published  by  another? 
This  last  question  almost  answers 
itself. 

II 

We  have  now  proved  our  asser- 
tions. But  that  there  may  be  no 
reasonable  question  of  our  having 
done  so,  let  us  summarize  the  as- 
sertions and  the  proof  in  support 
of  them. 

First.  We  have  proved  by  the 
foregoing  correspondence  that 
any  periodical  is  subject  to  exclu- 
sion from  the  mails  as  a  purveyor 
of  obscenity,  upon  the  mere  arbi- 
trary order  of  administrative  post 
oflfice  officials. 

Second.  We  have  proved,  also 
by  the  foregoing  correspondence, 
that  exclusion  orders  are  made  by 

29 


the  Post  Office  Department  osten- 
sibly in  accordance  with  its  own 
rulings  as  to  what  constitutes  ob- 
scenity, and  that  these  rulings, 
though  treated  as  precedents  by 
postmasters,  are  kept  profoundly 
secret  by  the  Department. 

Third.  We  have  proved  by  ref- 
erence to  a  previous  article  on  this 
general  subject  (p.  424),  which  is 
too  lengthy  to  be  reproduced  here, 
that  the  courts  hold  decisions  of 
the  Postmaster  General  in  these 
matters  to  be  absolutely  beyond 
the  power  of  the  judiciary  to  over- 
ride or  restrain,  even  though  he 
decide  without  evidence  and  in 
manifest  bad  faith. 

Fourth.  We  have  proved  by  the 
above  correspondence,  supple- 
mented now  by  the  best  testimony 
possible,  in  view  of  the  necessity 
the  Department  imposes  upon  us 
of  proving  the  negative  of  an  issue 
on  which  it  holds  the  affirmative 
and  possesses  all  the  affirmative 
evidence  if  there  be  any,  that  in 
practice  the  Department  does  ex- 
clude from  the  mails  for  obscenity 
periodicals  which  in  fact  are  not 
obscene.  The  correspondence 
proves  the  first  part  of  this  con- 
tention, namely,  that  the  Depart- 
ment excludes  periodicals  alleged 
to  contain  obscene  articles.  As 
to  the  second  and  essential  part 
of  the  contention,    namely,    that 

30 


the  articles  are  in  fact  not  ob- 
scene, the  Department  refuses  to 
indicate  the  decisive  facts,  which 
are  within  its  own  control  and  in 
the  nature  of  things  cannot  be 
known  to  outsiders.  The  sev- 
eral articles  indicated  above  by 
the  Chicago  postmaster  as  cause 
for  exclusion  are  clearly  not  ob- 
scene. The  fact  that  the  Depart- 
ment refuses  to  particularize 
should  raise  a  reasonable  pre- 
sumption that  there  is  nothing 
which  it  can  particularize.  And 
in  support  of  this  presumption  we 
now  positively  testify,  after  read- 
ing the  excluded  papers  through, 
that  they  in  fact  contain  no  word, 
phrase  or  thought  which  can  with 
any  show  of  reason  be  character- 
ized as  obscene. 

Five.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
prove  that  these  circumstances  af- 
ford dangerous  opportunities  for 
corruption  in  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment. When  the  law  permits 
postal  officials  to  exclude  from 
the  mails  any  periodical,  arbitrar- 
ily in  their  own  discretion,  with  no 
appeal  to  the  courts,  upon  the 
bare  pretense  that  they  contain 
obscenity  but  without  any  re- 
quirement that  the  alleged  ob> 
scenity  be  particularized  with  suf- 
ficient definiteness  to  permit  of  a 
judgment  upon  the  good  faith  of 

31 


the  exclusion,  and  when  tJie  De- 
partment passes  upon  the  ques- 
tion not  only  arbitrarily  but  in  se- 
cret, the  opportunities  for  secret 
corruption  are  so  enormous  that 
only  the  corruptible  official  in  the 
place  for  corrupting  possibili- 
ties is  necessary  to  produce  a 
regime  of  corruption. 

We  submit,  then,  that  we  have 
established  all  that  in  Ibis  ni  licle 
we  set  out  to  prove.  Any  [m  riodic- 
al  may  be  peremptorily  cxc  luded 
from  the  mails  as  a  purveyor  of 
obscenity  though  it  contain  noth- 
ing obscene,  and  this  upon  th^» 
mere  order  of  administrative 
postal  officials;  exclusion  orders 
are  made  in  alleged  accordance 
with  secret  precedents,  the  lim- 
itations of  which  are  withheld 
from  publishers  seeking  to  adapt 
their  editorial  rights  to  postal 
rulings;  the  courts  declare  them- 
selves powerless  to  interfere,  even 
though  exclusions  be  made  with- 
out evidence  and  in  manifest  bad 
faith;  the  Post  Office  Department 
does  in  fact  in  this  arbitrary  man- 
ner exclude  from  the  mails  as  ob- 
scene, periodicals  which  in  fact 
are  not  obscene.  Therefore,  as  the 
law^  now  stands,  it  affords  a  degree 
of  opportunity  for  corrupt  dis- 
crimination and  oppression  which 
it  is  unsafe  to  repose  in   any  of- 

32 


ficial  and  which  ought  to  be  guard- 
ed against  by  Congress. 

Ill 

The  remedy  for  this  fungus 
growth  upon  the  postal  service,  a 
service  originally  intended  only 
for  a  national  convenience  but 
now  turned  into  a  national  police 
system  which  operates  through  ir- 
responsible "administrative  proc- 
ess" and  from  a  "star  chamber" 
tribunal,  lies  with  Congress. 

Shall  the  right  to  mail  service  in 
the  United  States,  now  become  a 
necessity  of  the  common  life,  de- 
pend upon  the  caprice,  the  bigotry 
or  the  corruptibility  of  one  man  at 
the  head  of  a  AVashington  depart- 
ment or  his  subordinate  at  the 
head  of  a  bureau? 

That  question  is  distinctly 
raised. 

The  courts  have  answered,  Yes. 
What  has  Congress  to  say? 


33 


The  Free  Speech 
League 

employs  its  funds  mainly  for 
printing  and  mailing  circulars 
and  pamphlets  to  make  known 
to  influential  persons  the  pre- 
sent pressing  and  increasing 
dangers  to  liberty  of  the  press 
and  mails.  Many  are  stupidly 
blind  to  the  facts;  many  are 
slow  to  awaken  to  their  im- 
portance, and  the  great  mass 
are  content  to  let  some  one 
else  protest  and  pay  costs. 
The  few  who  feel  inspired  to 
help  us  hold  what  we  have  of 
free  press  and  regain  what  has 
been  lost  through  lack  of  '  'eter- 
nal vigilance/  may  send  their 
contributions  to  the  Treasurer, 
E.  B.  Foote,  Jr.,  120  Lexing- 
ton Ave.,  New  York  City. 

84 


COPIES  OF  THIS 
PAMPHLET 

will  be  furnished  on  the  following  terms: 
MAILED     TO     ANY    ADDRESS,     POSTPAID 

Single  Copy    . $0.03 

100  Copies,  mailed  in  bulk      .     .     1.75 
100  Copies,  to  varying  addresses      3.00 

Our  Advancing 
Postal  Censorship 

Reprinted  from  THE  PUBLIC 
of  August  12,  1905. 

28   Pages,  3  cents,    postpaid;    100 
copies,  $1.50,  postpaid. 


The  publishers  will  send  free 
f.o  any  address  their  catalog-ue 
of  books  relating"  to  funda- 
mental democracy. 


The  Public  Publishing 
Company 

First  National  Bank  Building:,  CHICAGO,  ILL 

36 


The  Public 


LOUIS      F.     POST,     EDITOR 

A  Journal 

of  Fundamental   Democracy 

and  a  Weekly  Narrative 

of  History  in  the 

Making 

HAS  THESE  PRINCIPAL  FEATURES: 


A 


CONCISE,  but  complete, 
interesting  and  non-partisan 
weekly  history  of  the  world, 
each  instalment  containing 
page  references  to  earlier 
mention  of  the  events  noted, 
so  that  the  issues  together  form  an  up- 
to-date  narrative,  most  handy  to  read  and 
consult,  and  in  best  form  for  binding  and 
preservation,  with  full  yearly  index. 

^  Searching  and  fearless  editorial  dis- 
cussion of  present  affairs  in  the  spirit  of 
that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence which  declares  that  *'all  men 
are  created  equal.*' 

^,\  Striking  selections  from  contempora- 
neous publications,  of  interest  and 
affording  instruction;  and  candid  reviews 
of  really  important  books. 

Ti  Graphic  and  timely  cartoons  by  J.  W. 
Bengough. 

36 


Comments 


You  are  doing  a  great  work  with 
The  Public  ....  You  teach  the 
teachers,  and  the  good  goes  broadening 
down  surely  if  slowly. — Wm.  Lloyd  Garri- 
son, Lexington,  Mass. 

I  enjoy  The  Public.  It  has  broadened 
my  views  of  humanity. — A.  J.  Inloes, 
Secretary  Board  of  Education,  Bingham- 
ton,  N.  Y. 

The  Public  gets  better  every  issue. 
A.  B.  Bradford,  Clarkrange,  Tenn. 

When  I  miss  The  Public  I  feel  as  if  I 
had  lost  a  sincere  and  intellectual  friend. — 
Hon.  Edgar  L.  Ryder,  Ossining,  N.  Y. 


SUBSCRIPTIONS 

Yearly. $i .  oo 

Half  yearly 50 

Quarterly 25 

Free     of     postage    in    United    States, 
Canada,  Cuba  and  Mexico. 


SAMPLE  COPIES    ON  APPLICATION 


The  Public   Publishing  Company 

First  INationol  Bank  Building 
CHICAGO.  ILL. 


THE    PROPHET 
SERIES 


Each  in  attractive  paper  covef ,  with 
portrait,  size  of  pag-e  3^4:  in.  x  8>^    in. 


1.  A  GREAT  INIQUITY 

By  COUNT  LEO  TOLSTOY 

An  article  on  property   in  land. 
48  pages,  10  cents,  postpaid;  12  copies  for  $1.00, 
postpaid. 

2.  GERRIT  SMITH   ON   LAND 

MONOPOLY 

With  introduction  by  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison,  the 
younger. 

32  pages,  10  cents,  postpaid;  12  copies  for 
$i.oo,  postpaid. 

,3.    JOHN  P.  ALTGELD;  a  Sketch 

By  LOUIS  F.  POST 

An  appreciative  biographical  sketch  of  the  late 
governor  of  Illinois,  with  portrait  reproduced 
from  the  celebrated  painting  by  Ralph  Clarkson. 

32  pages,  10  cents,  postpaid  ;  12  copies  for  $1.00, 
postpaid. 

4.    TOM  L.  JOHNSON;  a  Sketch 

By  LOUIS  F.  POST 

The  fullest  biographical  sketch  yet  written  of 
the  thrice-elected  Mayor  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  with 
an  account  of  his  work  as  "the  best  mayor  of  the 
best  governed  city  in  the  United  States," 

60  pages,  15  cents,  postpaid;  7  copies  for  $1.00, 
postpaid 


THE  PUBLIC  PUBLISHING  CO. 

First  National  Bank  Baiidingr,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 


A  GREAT  INIQUITY 

By  LEO  TOLSTOY 

An  Article  on  Property  in  Land 

(Reprinted  from  The  London  Times   and  from 
The  Public.) 


It  seems  to  me  that  Tolstoy  has  made* 
a  most  remarkable,  though  brief,  statement 
of  the  whole  question.  His  illustrations 
are  well-nigh  perfect  and  his  appeal  is 
irresistible.  All  in  all,  it  is  tht  clearest 
and  most  forcible  statemeut  of  this  great 
human  problem  that  I  have  seen  for  a  long 
time. — Victor  C.  Alder  son,  Presideyit 
Colorado  School  of  Mines,   Golden,   Colo, 

Popular  edition,  paper,  48  pages, 
5%x3,  4  cents  a  copy,  postpaid;  loo 
copies  to  one  address,  $2.25-  to  vary- 
ing addresses,  $3.50— postpaid. 

Illustrated  edition,  paper  cover,  48 
pages,  8)^x334:,  10  cents  a  copy,  post- 
paid; 12  copies  for  $1.00,  postpaid. 


Smaller  Profits,  Reduced  Salaries 
and  Lower  Wages 

THE  CONDITION,  THE  CAUSE,  THE  CURE 
By  GEORGE  L.  RUSBY 

1 6 mo,    80  pages,   5  cents  a  copy,   post- 
paid;    10  copies,  40  cents,  postpaid. 

THE  PUBLIC  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

First  National  Bank  Building,  Chicago. 

39 


T 


HE   OPEN   SHOP 

AND 

HE   CLOSED    SHOP 

By  LOUIS  F.  POST 

Editor  of  The    Public 


"It  is  the  most  terse,  pithy  and  con- 
clusive article  upon  the  subject  tha^  has 
been  published.  All  wage  earners,  organ- 
ized or  unorganized,  should  read  it." — John 
FiTZPATRicK,  Organizer  Chicago  Federation 
of  Labor. 

"The  logic  of  the  article  appeals  vvith 
great  force  to  every  candid  mind,  aad  I 
sincerely  hope  it  will  be  widely  read,  not 
only  by  working  people,  but  also  by 
employers  and  business  men." — Joi  n  C. 
Harding,  Organizer  Chicago  Typograph- 
ical Union  No.  i6. 

Paper,  64  pages,  5%x3.  5  cents  a  copy; 
by  mail,  6  cents.  One  dozen  copies,  50 
cents;  by  mail,  56  cents.  100  copies  to  one 
address,  $3.50— to  varying  addresses,  $4.75 
— postpaid. 


The  publishers  issue  other  pamphlets  and  a 
variety  of  books,  together  with  The  Public,  and 
are  devoted  entirely  to  the  promulgation  of  the 
best  literature  relating  to  real  or  fundamental 
democracy  (in  the  broad  sense  of  the  word) 
Sample  copies  of  The  Public  and  book  cata- 
logue will  be  sent  on  request. 


THE  PUBLIC  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

First  National  Bank  Building,  CHICAGO 

40 


14  DAY  USE 

IBTURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROW] 

LOAN  DEPT. 

Ills  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall 

m 


\9W3'J 


Tt^ 


RECEDED 


-B«- 


inT?8'fi.?-QPN 


MftYe  i9£n 


[I'-h^o  .  h^ 


U8kmi<Y  uS£^ 


^^^^=^' 


m^^ 


RECD  LD 


APR  27  1961 


UBRAa>  USE 

M^  ^?961 


MAY  22  1987 


KiiA.^ 


l96^ 


R' 


APRS  2  198 


aM 


63Vt 


QRcuuriQN  oa 


T*    01    A__Kn«v,^     »«A 


General  Library 


